6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Negotino.
7.  The applicant was an employee and shareholder of the company N. (“the company”). He was also Chairman of the company's Union of Workers.
8.  On 28 June 2002 a letter was published in the newspaper M.D. under the following title: 'Unusual alliances have destroyed the Negotino cable-production factory' (“Неприродни сојузи ја уништија Неготинската фабрика за кабли”). The applicant's name was indicated as the author of the text. The latter spoke about the problems of the company's employees and shareholders. It alleged that since Mr B.J. had become the company's Chief Executive, the shareholders had been deprived of their rights and pressed to withdraw lawsuits against the company's management. The latter had dismissed the Union of Workers and appointed its own union. It further stated, inter alia:
“... I, as the Chairman of our Union, was laid off in unfair disciplinary proceedings ... I've already said that Mr I.G. and Mr B.J., the Chief Executives of the company, had taken over the factory from us and engaged in criminal activities in these two and a half years. We, the employees, are laid off in fake disciplinary proceedings, while more senior employees are under continuing pressure to leave the factory as redundant. Why the law cannot reach ... Mr B.J.? ...”
9.  On 1 July 2002 Mr B.J. submitted to the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) a private criminal complaint against the applicant for defamation. On 24 March 2003 he supplemented the complaint and requested that the applicant be held responsible for defamation in respect of another article published on 5 March 2003 in a weekly newspaper S.
10.  On an unspecified date in 2004, the trial judge ordered that the police assist in securing the applicant's attendance at a hearing. The applicant relied inter alia on that order in his request for withdrawal of the trial judge, which was to no avail.
11.  According to the minutes of a hearing of 25 January 2005, Mr A.M., a journalist, and a chief editor of the newspaper M.D. did not appear since they had not been properly summoned. On this occasion, the applicant stated the following:
“... I consider the criminal complaint unsubstantiated since the only evidence against me was the extract of the newspaper bearing my name. There is no other evidence that I'm the author of the letter. It is well known that a letter or statement is to be published only if signed by the author ...”
12.  Mr B.J. stated, inter alia:
“... regarding the letter in question, which was signed by [the applicant], I knew that it was sent by him since another letter with similar content, signed by [the applicant], had been earlier published by the newspaper ... the defamatory statements are similar to some previous statements that he was making continuously directly to me or by e-mail. At every meeting [the applicant] made the same allegations as described in the criminal complaint. He has a web page where many others and I are mentioned and described in the same manner as in the newspaper M.D. ...”
13.  According to the minutes, the trial court ordered that Mr A.M. and the chief editor of the newspaper be summoned for the next hearing.
14.  In a letter of 23 June 2005 (the date of 20 June 2003 was also indicated) Mr G.A., the Director of the newspaper stated, inter alia:
“... we inform you that the author of the published letter ... is [the applicant], whose signature was under the text. By rule we publish only letters, which bear the author's signature and address, as well as the identity card number. The newspaper keeps these letters for thirty days before it destroys them. They may be kept longer only if they provoke reactions or become the subject of court proceedings or with a view to identifying the authors. The present letter, signed by [the applicant] and published in our newspaper, did not provoke any reactions nor was its authenticity contested. It is therefore not stored in our records.”
15.  On 7 November 2005 Mr B.J. withdrew the complaint which he had submitted on 24 March 2003.
16.  During a hearing held on 6 December 2005, the applicant stated that the relevant letter had been published without his permission. In the concluding remarks, he reiterated that he had not been the author of the letter and that no evidence had been presented to prove the contrary.
17.  On the same date, the trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment, suspended for a year. The court inter alia stated:
“...Mr G.A.'s letter of 23 June 2005 confirms that the applicant was the author of the letter published in the newspaper M.D. ... the text itself concerns the operation of the factory, in particular that of its director, the plaintiff. The letter states that the accused, as the Chairman of the Union, was dismissed in fake disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, it is evident from the content that [the applicant] is the author of the text. In his defence, [the applicant] stated that he was the Chairman of the Union and was dismissed. Since the events related to him, it can be concluded that he wrote the letter and signed it ... The court assessed the applicant's defence that there was no evidence that he was the author of the letter ... and that the criminal complaint was unsubstantiated in the absence of such proof ... furthermore, he stated that he had not given permission for its publication and that he would not reply whether he had sent the letter to the newspaper. That the accused committed the crime and was the author of the letter is confirmed by the letter of the newspaper's director ... the plaintiff's testimony also confirmed that the accused was the author of the text ... since [the applicant] made similar statements to him directly.... On the other hand, [the applicant] did not present any evidence that he had not been the author of the letter nor he had objected to the newspaper in this respect. Consequently, he did not present any evidence that would contradict the statements that the newspaper's director made in his letter ...”
18.  On 18 February 2006 the applicant appealed against this judgment arguing that the plaintiff had not presented any evidence to corroborate his guilt. In this connection he argued that the plaintiff could have obtained a copy of the original letter in support of the criminal complaint, which he had lodged three days after its publication. He failed to do so since there was no letter with his signature. He reiterated that he had not signed the letter and that somebody else had put his name under the text. He further complained that:
“... the trial judge rendered the decision without having examined the only witness mentioned in the decision. Although the trial judge requested his presence, he – the newspaper's director, did not appear in court. He did not produce oral evidence before the court, but sent instead, the letter in which he untruly states that my signature, address and identity card number were indicated under the text. Since the court summoned this witness, his failure to appear should not have been replaced with the letter. This witness should have been heard in my presence and the court should have allowed me to confront him ... In this connection I invoke Article 6 of the Convention ...”
19.  The applicant further complained that he was not given access to the case file nor was he allowed to make copies. Lastly, he complained that the trial judge ordered the police to secure his attendance at the trial, on the assumption that he had failed to appear in court on earlier occasions. In this later respect, he argued that there was no evidence in the case file that he had been summoned properly.
20.  On 9 March 2006 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal stating that inter alia:
“... there were no substantive procedural flaws ... the trial court duly considered all evidence, established the facts correctly and rendered a decision that is clear and sufficiently reasoned ... Since there are no grounds in [the applicant's] appeal that would contradict the trial court's findings related to the existence of the crime and [the applicant's] criminal responsibility, this court adheres to the facts established by the trial court.”
21.  This decision was served on the applicant on 22 March 2006.
22.  On 21 June 2006 the applicant requested the public prosecutor to lodge a request with the Supreme Court for the protection of legality. According to him, the public prosecutor rejected this request.